Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Yea, cause a 17 year old kid who went to the store for Skittles and soda would just randomly attack someone? Happens all the time...
Or, Martin was being followed and felt threatened. If he was, and did attack Zimmerman it's still going to be manslaughter because Martin had every legal right to be doing what he was.
The evidence needs to show that Martin was committing a crime, not that he wasn't. You're asking for the prosecution to prove a negative here.
-spence
|
"Yea, cause a 17 year old kid who went to the store for Skittles and soda would just randomly attack someone? Happens all the time..."
Earth to Spence...you weren't there.
Spence, I'd love to know what you were saying in the first day or two after the Duke lacrosse rape case eploded onto the scene.
You liberals crack me up. You won't call the Ft Hood shooter an Islamic terrorist despite overwhelming evidence. But you have no problem rushing to judgment here.
As always, if it serves the liberal agenda, it must be true. It it spits in the face of the liberal agenda, it must be false.
By the way, I think Zimmerman is probably guilty of something here. But from where I sit, there's all kinds of ways to raise reasonable doubt. Zimmerman says he was attacked, the back of his head is covered in blood, that's a whole lot of reasonable doubt right there.